Most Helpful Girl

Kind of. The part I'm not in full agreement is that they have the right to vent their frustrations without being labeled misogynist because of the women who hurt them.

I get that. But why doesn't this extend to women?I know personally, my dad used to beat me, he was not a good father nor husband as he constantly cheated on my mom.I've had relatives and his friends who would molest not just me, but my sisters as well when we were just toddlers and children.I've had stalkers who called me names like whore, slut, bitch etc because I refused to date them.I've never cheated and yet both my exes cheated on me.

When I tell men this shit and why before I did not trust men at all, I'd get labeled a misandrist slut. But if a man gets hurt by women he can easily call women stupid, gold digging, selfish hoes and everyone agrees.

Why is that mostly men can vent about it, yet women who do it, are constantly told "#NotAllMen"?

If you wanted to write a take posting scientific evidence that shows strong trends in physical aggression amongst men and specific acts of domestic violence compared between each gender, then that would be an acceptable, non-discriminatory form of analysis.

Similarly, guys need to show more evidence about dating inequality, specifically 80/20 theory to expose the full extent of female hypergamy (which could be a contributing factor towards male violence).

'Why is that mostly men can vent about it'

Actually, if men vent about their sexual frustration they are told it's because they set their expectations too high, rather than because women are hypergamous. Also, those men must be entitled, needy, fake nice, lazy, unattractive, etc. when the reality is just that women are hypergamous. And lastly, they are told not to generalise, even in face of the fact that it's clearly a majority of women that are hypergamous.

Look at most of the responses on here, not this particular question, but this site in general. Whenever a guy posts a question about how evil women are, most guys agree. A few will say that it's not all women. And sometimes women agree as well. While many remind them their experiences are not necessarily reflective of reality.

Eh, you probably experience that because as a woman, it seems like everybody is bashing on your gender but to a guy, he will read responses on here and see that as everybody bashing on his gender. The truth is probably more in the middle of those two extremes.

That's just because more guys come on here in general: this whole place is a sausage fest. Look at questions and takes - even the ones asked by girls - and by and large there are more male responses. For example, in one of my most recent takes, there was plenty of male responses (14) but literally zero female (so far):

I think higher levels of testosterone has an effect here (more testosterone -> more aggression -> more vocal about your opinions). If that was the case, it would explain why you see more misogyny than misandry here, but the fewer female posters that do post definitely do have misandrist comments to make.

" I think higher levels of testosterone has an effect here (more testosterone -> more aggression -> more vocal about your opinions). If that was the case, it would explain why you see more misogyny than misandry here, but the fewer female posters that do post definitely do have misandrist comments to make.

Most Helpful Guy

hmm, I think the caption kinda confuses things in a bit. Cause for example, naturally a "nice guy" would love to give flowers if had the chance, or just buy their girl a gift or whatever really, dont think would really care who paid for the date either. Part of being nice is naturally being giving and kind. Dosent mean you roll over naturally, its something just for that one special someone.

Anyway, more to my point. In many of these points you include something that a nice guy would do, then also include a negative comparrison to women or type of women. Like yeah "* These guys hate opening doors for women, paying for dates and buying expensive gifts for already pampered and superficial westernised women" . I assume you mean only for "superficial westernised women" or? Cause why would a nice guy have a problem doing either of those things for someone he cared about for example? I hold doors for random people sometimes, but I dont really think of the gender they are though, but thats kinda my point to. Is that anyone who is nice, is simply nice cause thats how you are as a person. You are not nice, beacuse of women, for women or anything women related really. And I kinda doubt really either way that a "Nice guy" would bother with a "superficial woman" anyway.

And would be ironic though if the "mistreated nice guy" would be doing the generalisations and get some back cause of his bad experience with women. Hey I had my fair share of bad experiences, but I never blamed any other woman than the spesific indivdual who hurt me. Its not an excuse anyway, to do these mistakes. If going to vent, always speak of the individual, otherwise are blaming others for the mistake you are doing yourself (not you spesificly who wrote this of course, but from what it is sayin/suggesting)

Anyways, some other things too, but im tired and sleepy and retarted now, lol. But either way, my suggestion is to drop pretty much anything that talks down on anyone really, dont need it. Its fine to have a no bullshit attitude. But you can say that without bringing in anyone else, like. "A nice guy dont take any bullshit" Instead of say "A nice guy dont take any bullshit from women /type of women". Cause would probably apply to both genders anyway, otherwise its slightly biased.

'for example, naturally a "nice guy" would love to give flowers if had the chance, or just buy their girl a gift or whatever really, dont think would really care who paid for the date either.'

I mentioned that in context of a list of other general acts of chivalry. Also, not minding doing that and being EXPECTED to do that are two very different things. But yes, I can see how this would confuse things (I wanted to get a lot of points into a relatively short caption).

'you mean only for "superficial westernised women" '

Yes, I'm only talking about a specific kind of woman.

'why would a nice guy have a problem doing either of those things for someone he cared about '

I still hold that someone like myself for example would still prefer not to engage in acts of chivalry to a nice girl. Not out of dislike for her but out of a disliking of the social norms about chivalry in general.

Yeah, it's in the context of chivalry in general. For example, it's not so much holding a door open for a date that's right behind you, but waiting around for 5 minutes while she get's her shopping ready.

'"Nice guy" would bother with a "superficial woman" anyway.'

Right, that's kind of my point. The thing is, people see the requests of this kind of women as perfectly reasonable and they perceive the guy that does not want to oblige and would rather date a different kind of woman as being rude, stuck in his head about equality, etc.

[PT3]'I had my fair share of bad experiences, but I never blamed any other woman than the spesific indivdual who hurt me.'

I get this, believe me. But most of us are normal human beings, not scientific methodological individuals. We know that it's not possible to break human behaviour down into small, individual interactions. Bigots will generalise like crazy. More informed people will try to look at general, analysable trends and try to find a pattern. For me, I've noticed a pattern of superficiality and hypergamous dating among young, attractive western women - not all of them, and it's spread across other genders and races. But it is highly prevalent in that specific category, nonetheless.

'Its fine to have a no bullshit attitude. But you can say that without bringing in anyone else, like. '

What Girls Said 7

I think the problem is that there are so many self-identified 'nice guys' that are needy, traditionalist, no sense of style and no attractiveness that perpetuate the myth. it doesn't help then when some women come online (I say 'feminists' but you will understand what I'm saying) and say, "Well, that's the reason these guys can't get dates - they're all like *this*". So a guy that's none of those things but still struggling is going to be at a loss for words, especially if he's just looking for constructive advice but finding pages and pages of whiny 'nice guys' and 'feminists' rebutting the wrong kinds of people altogether.

Well when people talk about "nice guys" I"m certain they're usually discussing the stereotypes not genuinely nice people. They're typically discussing the people who feel obligations to things because they think they're nice when they're just like everyone else. Genuinely nice people are loved by nearly everyone. Whether you're a man or woman people just like people that are kind.

Also, treating your woman like you love her isn't degrading or implies she's the "weaker sex." It shows that you value her just as I would expect a woman to do the same. Traditional ideologies aren't sexist. Are there sexist traditionalists? Sure, but being a traditional man shows more love, care and attention to your woman than being a modern man does. The same way being a traditional woman tends to show more love, care and attention as well.

Right. So the point of this image caption was to remove harmful and destructive stereotypes about genuinely nice people and to show that a guy can have attractive qualities and still be unsuccessful with women. People tend to assume that that can never be the case.

When I discussed this with katy16 in the comment section, I came to a different conclusion: that it's ok to do all of this chivalry stuff if you are looking for a traditional woman to be in a long-term committed relationship with. However most people (even women) are not looking for this in the modern, western world. There's no reason a guy should have to do acts of chivalry for say, a feminist who just wants wild flings or such.

Well yeah I wouldn't expect one to. Different approaches to relationships for different people. Not all women are suitable for traditional relationships because they themselves do not possess traditional characteristics. I agree with that yeah. I guess a guy like this doesn't seem appealing to me personally because I would possess those traditional traits and ideologies. Nothing like a lot of modern feminists have.

the thing about chivalry is, it degrades women in a way because they are seen as the weaker sex who need doors holding open, dates being paid for, etc. (well, actually I hold doors open for anybody but you catch my drift).

But it doesn't just degrade women, it degrades men as well because they have to play this role as provider, essentially serving the woman in a very uniltateral (one-sided) manner.

An egalitarian can still be a kind, polite gentleman, he just doesn't need chivalry to accomplish that.

I totally disagree with that, and I like traditional roles for men and women so it's not one sided because my boyfriend will do chivalrous things then I'll do stuff like make dinner, keep the house clean etc.

ok, so if the two of you are looking for some kind of traditional, monogamous relationship (maybe even marriage) from the very start, then that's fine and I can understand why you would expect chivalrous gestures. however there's plenty of people (men AND women) not looking for this level of commitment and yet the women in the relationship expect chivalry from the start, just because they like to be feel pampered and precious. it's childish.

tbh, I wouldn't really be interested in ultra-traditionalist girls that just want loads of chivalry and monogamy right from the start. we just wouldn't be on the same plane of thinking - totally different lifestyle to what I want. if they want to do that, cool but tbh I would try to avoid ending up on a date with one of them.

The point about chivalry is that if you are looking for some kind of traditional, monogamous relationship (maybe even marriage) from the very start, then that's fine and I can understand why you would expect chivalrous gestures. However there's plenty of people (men AND women) not looking for this level of commitment and yet the women in the relationship expect chivalry from the start, just because they like to be feel pampered and precious. Just opening doors is not the problem here.

What Guys Said 13

I agree with the first three points.For want of a better term, I was a 'nice guy' who could almost not get a date until he was 30.I was not a simp, or a pussy beggar, or the nice guy who thought that was a way to get into a girl's pants. My mother raised me to be an old-fashioned gentleman. It was not until I was about 30 that I understood the bad-boy fixation that most young women had, which meant that the way I had been taught to interact with women was guaranteed to lead to rejection or the Friend Zone.Most young women want arseholes who treat them like shit. There is no delicate way to put it.Between the ages of 15 to about 30, the vast majority of women want players (aka oily nightclub Romeos) and sociopathic bad boys. These females thrive on the rollercoaster ride of heartbreak and drama that being involved with that sort of male provides. Life becomes one unending soap opera.About the age of 30 most of these females have an epiphany and realise that the players and the bad boys are not husband material, so they begin to look for the type of man who was of no interest to them when they were 20.I have experienced that 180 degree shift in female demonstrated group preference.I went from being sad and dateless to being hit on by all manner of women in all sorts of ways and places. It is still happening, even at my somewhat advanced age.From my end, it was too late.About 30 I sat down and assessed my situation. I had spent a decade and a half trying to meet and date girls. For a time, any conversation that did not involve the girl using the words 'fuck off', or 'fuck off, you freak' was counted as a success.I came to the evidence-based conclusion that what I had to offer was not what was wanted, so I made the decision to walk away.By the time that women, as a collective, changed their preference in men I was too far down a road of bitterness and resentment to be interested.When women hit on me, I am polite but cold and pretend to not notice their displays of interest. I go dead inside.It is a tad more difficult to be unresponsive when they ask for my mobile telephone number and/or email address.

I'm getting sick of any types of generalizations and the overthinking that goes on with dating and relationships. How about there are no nice guys or assholes, how about they're just people living their life the best way they see fit. No one wants to be an asshole, the people that actively try have serious mental issues and people tend to unite and ostracize them.Everyone is their own person and everyone gets along with different types of people that best match their personality. The only way to find that other person is to actively search for him/her open mindedly. So in reality there are really only two types of people, ones that go for it and once that don't. It's as simple as that.

I know that they are generalisations: that is why I never initially used them myself and neither did a lot of other guys who could be described as having genuinely nice and attractive qualities. The problem is that needy and clingy guys, started saying things like "nice guys finish last" and the women that wanted to come online to refute their claims meant that actually good, attractive men got a bad rep. And then it was assumed that if you were a good, attractive man that you would have dating and sexual freedom. If you had something to say about female dating hypergamy, you were a misogynist 'nice guy'. If you didn't have any success with women, you were an unattractive, unconfident 'nice guy'. So all of these assumptions were wrong, hence the reason it's necessary to still talk about nice guy in a serious context - to remedy the harmful and destructive stereotypes surrounding the label.

There are some truth but a lot of this is totally wrong. Other than the venting and partial anger towards feminism.

Other wise the rest is wrong nice guys dont mind holding doors for women or girls, they do get gifts they just arnt common cause they want them to have a meaning beyond just another thing lying around the appartment. Nice guys will pay for the bill they just dont like it when they feel like the girl friend is clinging to them to do it (as they dont like being the "life raft.") Also if the guy is paying all the bills that really digs into what he can afford to get as gifts. Especially if the girl is pushing him to pay for it all.

"it's ok to do all of this chivalry stuff if you are looking for a traditional woman to be in a long-term committed relationship with. However most people (even women) are not looking for this in the modern, western world. There's no reason a guy should have to do acts of chivalry for say, a feminist who just wants wild flings or such."

random flings are something else its mostly how a guy wants to be looked at what it comes down to it. I just learned at a early age to respect people and make the most of what one has not what one could have.

Thing is, I never started using the word "nice guy" and neither did a lot of other guys who could be described as having genuinely nice and attractive qualities. But all of these guys that really are needy and clingy and the women that wanted to come online to refute their claims meant that actually good, attractive men got a bad rep. And then it was assumed that if you were a good, attractive man that you would have dating and sexual freedom. If you had something to say about female dating hypergamy, you were a misogynist 'nice guy'. If you didn't have any success with women, you were an unattractive, unconfident 'nice guy'. So all of these assumptions were wrong, hence the reason it's necessary to still talk about nice guy in a serious context - to remedy the harmful and destructive stereotypes surrounding the label.

yeah... you (and other people) are reading into the whole 'opening doors' thing too much. I obviously mentioned it in the context of general acts of chivalry (paying for dates, buying expensive gifts for girls, etc.). Opening a door for one thing, standing around for somebody 5 blocks behind you and waiting around for her to pick up all her groceries and shopping is another entirely.

It shows how women think of men who are nice but not that attractive. They essential think they are being nice to get sex/relationship from them. When the guy does not one to continue participating in a one sided relationship where they use him as an app service or treat him badly then according to women he is not a truly nice person.

Women logic - If you are a truly nice person you would not expect anything in return.

0

0|0

0|0

Opinion Owner

*When the guy does not want to continue participating in a one sided relationship where they use him as an app service or treat him badly then according to women he is not a truly nice person.

Yeah, he gets the point about being genuinely nice in that take but he doesn't get the point about being attractive. A nice guy can be genuinely nice AND attractive but still not have much luck with women.

The point isn't about attraction and women. The point was talking about the difference between the 2 men and women demonizing one guy as being fake nice when he stands up for himself because he doesn't want to be used.

Yeah, but his point was that the second guy was labelled fake nice and the first guy was labelled "the good guy" who get's girls. truth is, women date unattractive guys a LOT more than society thinks they do. the first guy could have just as easily been the "nice guy" that is unsuccessful but still attractive. then when the first guy asks a question like, "how is it that I do not have a girlfriend? I am not just a nice guy, I am very attractive." he is demonised as misogynistic, needy, entitled, etc., etc.

That's why I thought his take missed the point. Also they were silly pictures because most people would agree that the second guy, apart from being on the short side, was above average attractiveness also.

Oh the second guy has trouble with women and no he is not socially awkward. I've actually seen a video of him talking of his trouble in online dating and getting women in real life. He speaks very intelligent and clear like I'm saying he could be a professional voice actor.

'the first guy could have just as easily been the "nice guy" that is unsuccessful but still attractive. then when the first guy asks a question like, "how is it that I do not have a girlfriend? I am not just a nice guy, I am very attractive." he is demonised as misogynistic, needy, entitled, etc., etc.'

by the way, articulate, confident people can still have problems meeting women for whatever reasons. Female attraction is a very weird and unpredictable phenomena. Guys should not come online talking about looks, money, status because it's nowhere near as simple as that.

However he's originally from the hood and acts like those rappers you see on tv. So it appears people seem to have some kind of bias when a black person doesn't act like what you see on tv and actually tries to be intelligent, and eloquent with their words.